add minItems for the required field scopes

[edwardmedia]

Fixes hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#8792

If this PR is for Terraform, I acknowledge that I have:

• Searched through the issue tracker for an open issue that this either resolves or contributes to, commented on it to claim it, and written "fixes {url}" or "part of {url}" in this PR description. If there were no relevant open issues, I opened one and commented that I would like to work on it (not necessary for very small changes).
• Generated Terraform, and ran make test and make lint to ensure it passes unit and linter tests.
• Ensured that all new fields I added that can be set by a user appear in at least one example (for generated resources) or third_party test (for handwritten resources or update tests).
• Ran relevant acceptance tests (If the acceptance tests do not yet pass or you are unable to run them, please let your reviewer know).
• Read the Release Notes Guide before writing my release note below.

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

compute: added minimum for `scopes` field to `google_compute_instance` resource

[modular-magician]

Hello! I am a robot who works on Magic Modules PRs.

I have detected that you are a community contributor, so your PR will be assigned to someone with a commit-bit on this repo for initial review.

Thanks for your contribution! A human will be with you soon.

@melinath, please review this PR or find an appropriate assignee.

[modular-magician]

Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

Diff report:

Terraform GA: Diff ( 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+))
Terraform Beta: Diff ( 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+))

[modular-magician]

I have triggered VCR tests based on this PR's diffs. See the results here: "https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/viewQueued.html?itemId=179732"

[melinath]

@edwardmedia Could you elaborate on this fix? I can see how requiring at least one scope would prevent a user from encountering the described behavior, and I don't think we necessarily need to support empty scopes to provide a good user experience.

Does the API support empty scopes? Is the user correct that sending an empty scopes field + no email should give us the default service account but without any scopes?

[modular-magician]

I have triggered VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the following tests that failed during VCR: TestAccNotebooksInstance_notebookInstanceFullExample You can view the result here: "https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/viewQueued.html?itemId=179742"

[edwardmedia]

@melinath api does accept empty list of scopes but appears it does nothing. But it causes diff on tf side

{
 "scopes": [
 ]
}

[modular-magician]

Tests failed during RECORDING mode: TestAccNotebooksInstance_notebookInstanceFullExample Please fix these to complete your PR

[melinath]

Given that the API accepts no email + empty scopes but doesn't actually return any created objects - I'm fine with us requiring this input on the client side. A stricter interpretation could be to require either email or scopes, but I think that we can just say we don't support an empty scopes placeholder.

The test failure is unrelated.

[alsyia]

Hi, I opened the issue in the provider repo.

My thoughts on the default behaviour (no email + empty scopes results in default SA without scopes) came from the provider doc, here: https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/latest/docs/resources/compute_instance#email

Thanks for the quick fix, I will just add a scope to my instances :)